# Independent adviser evidence and independence scorecard (100 points)

**Scope:** US pre-seed to Series A businesses, usually 2–50 employees. Evidence reviewed 28 October 2026. Advice is about the *process*, not a promise of an outcome.

## Score a *specific proposed engagement*, not an attractive biography

The buyer's question is whether an adviser will provide rigorous challenge on a named decision, with manageable downside and conflicts. This original scoring rubric is **not an accredited credential or empirically validated predictor**. Evaluate candidates from the same written brief; request permissioned samples and references without revealing confidential client detail.

## Weighted criteria and 0–5 anchors

For each criterion, record a **0–5 rating**. Weighted points = `(rating ÷ 5) × criterion weight`. A **0** means missing or materially adverse evidence; **1** weak unsupported assertion; **3** credible partial evidence; **5** independently checkable evidence specific to the buyer's decision. Score absence as unknown/0 until resolved, rather than inventing a result.

| Criterion | Weight | A 5/5 looks like | A 0–1/5 looks like | Evidence request |
|---|---:|---|---|---|
| Decision and stage fit | **15** | Actual analogous seed/Series A decision work | Prestige without relevant context | 2 redacted analogous briefs |
| Constructive challenge | **20** | Shows counter-hypotheses and when own view changed | Pure reassurance or confident opinion | Dissent work sample + reference |
| Evidence and disconfirmation method | **15** | Source register, contrary data and explicit test design | Unsupported framework slides | Annotated methodology |
| Independence and conflicts | **15** | Written interests, referrals, sponsor rights and safeguards | Refuses disclosures | Signed conflict form |
| Scope, deliverables and timeliness | **10** | Fixed milestones, outputs, exclusions and deadline | Vague retainer | Written statement of work |
| Confidentiality and AI/data policy | **10** | Access, retention, AI processing and deletion documented | Blanket “trust us” | Contract schedules and policy |
| Commercial terms and exit | **5** | Fully comparable cash/equity, cancellation rules | Ambiguous total liability | Signed fee sheet / redlines |
| References and outcome honesty | **5** | Permissioned reference describing disagreement | Only unverified growth claims | Reference and attribution method |
| Boundary recognition / referrals | **5** | Seeks qualified legal/securities/finance input | Gives unqualified legal recommendations | Exclusion/escation schedule |
| **Total** | **100** | | | |

ICF's ethics code provides a useful external standard for coaching sponsor, privacy and conflicts questions; the SEC's broker-dealer guidance identifies an important hard legal boundary in funding engagements. [ICF Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025](https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/) [Broker-Dealers — US SEC](https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers)

## Excel / spreadsheet calculation example

For scores in B2:B10 and weights in C2:C10, the weighted total is `=SUMPRODUCT(B2:B10,C2:C10)/5` if weights total 100. Example ratings 4,3,4,5,4,3,4,3,5 yield **77/100** (illustrative; not a real supplier). Have two reviewers score independently, compare differences above one point, and request clarifying evidence.

## Interpret cautiously

| Score | Buyer interpretation | Action |
|---|---|---|
| **0–49** | Evidence not sufficient | Do not contract until gaps and red flags are addressed |
| **50–69** | Partial fit / material unknowns | Request sample, references or narrower trial |
| **70–84** | Promising for the stated brief | Negotiate clear scope and confidentiality |
| **85–100** | Strongly documented on these criteria | Still run conflict, legal and reference gates |

The bands are **editorial thresholds**, not proven quality categories. A score of 95 does not cure a conflict, inability to meet the deadline or unlicensed brokerage activity.

## Non-negotiable hard stops

- Adviser receives transaction-contingent pay for investor introductions or offers to negotiate securities without a clear registration/legal analysis. [Broker-Dealers — US SEC](https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers)
- Refuses to identify investors, referrals, equity holdings, client-side reporting or implementation revenue relevant to the decision.
- Cannot contractually define confidentiality, retention and disclosure to sponsors; coaching ethics place particular importance on these duties. [ICF Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025](https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/)
- Claims guaranteed valuation, financial return, fundraising success or certainty about a commercial outcome.
- Pressures the founder to delegate a legally retained governance decision to them.

## Reference call script

“Describe the last time the adviser challenged your original view. What did they *actually* produce? Which evidence did they accept against their own recommendation? Did the review finish on time? What additional costs arose? Were any relevant investor, sponsor or financial relationships disclosed? Did the relationship stop when the decision was resolved?”

Avoid a generic “were they good?” call. Ask for an anonymised redacted decision memo but respect permission and third-party confidentiality.

## Trial engagement structure

Send an identical two-page brief to two or three advisers. Ask for one structured interview, a list of assumptions and disconfirming evidence, one recommended cheap experiment and a short written memo. Set a fixed price or authorised time cap, data-handling terms and a no-automatic-renewal condition. If a finance model is required, make it a separate, verifiable deliverable. [Burkland: Strategic Finance for Startups](https://burklandassociates.com/services/strategic-finance/)

## Buyer versus sponsor screening

For portfolio-funded support, add an appendix: who pays, who decides whether the adviser remains, what the sponsor receives, limits on recording, founder consent and how reports can be challenged. Reboot's public Portfolio Circles programme includes feedback to the firm, so real contracts should state precisely what gets shared. [Reboot Portfolio Circles](https://www.reboot.io/service/portfolio-circles/)

## Scorecard record

**Company / decision:** ____  **Adviser legal entity:** ____  **Date / reviewer:** ____  **Fee and term:** ____  **Evidence reviewed:** ____  **Weighted points:** ____  **Hard stops:** ____  **Conflicts:** ____  **Requested clarification:** ____  **Decision:** engage / trial / no / defer. Keep this record confidential and avoid publishing named rankings without verification and rights.

## Related founder FAQs

### Can I score someone who refuses to provide a work sample?

Mark the missing evidence honestly; confidentiality may be legitimate, so ask for a synthetic or permissioned sample instead. Do not automatically infer misconduct from a refusal.

### Does an ICF credential earn a perfect score?

No; ethics and training matter but do not independently establish strategic competence for a seed-stage pivot. Test decision-specific evidence as well. [ICF Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025](https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/)

### What is the most heavily weighted criterion?

Constructive challenge carries 20 of 100 points, because agreement alone is not the service the desk wants to procure. The weight is an editorial design choice, not research-validated.

### Can a supplier with 90 points still be rejected?

Yes. Any material conflict, confidentiality failure or regulatory boundary can override a numerical total. [Broker-Dealers — US SEC](https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers)

### Should I publish a league table of adviser scores?

Not without consistent evidence, fairness review, rights and a transparent methodology. Buyer-private scoring is safer than implying untested objective rankings.

### How should I compare price?

Compare total minimum cash/equity exposure and deliverables, not only hourly rates. Equity terms need special legal and economic diligence. [The SAFE — Y Combinator](https://www.ycombinator.com/safe)

### What should happen after selection?

Sign a clear statement of work, establish decision ownership and data controls, then review against deliverables and stop conditions. Do not turn a one-off problem into an indefinite retainer by default.

## Sources

- [ICF Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025](https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/)
- [Broker-Dealers — US SEC](https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers)
- [Burkland: Strategic Finance for Startups](https://burklandassociates.com/services/strategic-finance/)
- [Reboot Portfolio Circles](https://www.reboot.io/service/portfolio-circles/)
- [The SAFE — Y Combinator](https://www.ycombinator.com/safe)

## Evidence gaps for the next research pass

- Inter-rater reliability study and blinded output test against provider samples
- Representative provider work samples with permission
- Legal review of the hard-stop language for relevant US states

## FAQs
### Can I score someone who refuses to provide a work sample?
Mark the missing evidence honestly; confidentiality may be legitimate, so ask for a synthetic or permissioned sample instead. Do not automatically infer misconduct from a refusal.
### Does an ICF credential earn a perfect score?
No; ethics and training matter but do not independently establish strategic competence for a seed-stage pivot. Test decision-specific evidence as well. [ICF Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025](https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/)
### What is the most heavily weighted criterion?
Constructive challenge carries 20 of 100 points, because agreement alone is not the service the desk wants to procure. The weight is an editorial design choice, not research-validated.
### Can a supplier with 90 points still be rejected?
Yes. Any material conflict, confidentiality failure or regulatory boundary can override a numerical total. [Broker-Dealers — US SEC](https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers)
### Should I publish a league table of adviser scores?
Not without consistent evidence, fairness review, rights and a transparent methodology. Buyer-private scoring is safer than implying untested objective rankings.
### How should I compare price?
Compare total minimum cash/equity exposure and deliverables, not only hourly rates. Equity terms need special legal and economic diligence. [The SAFE — Y Combinator](https://www.ycombinator.com/safe)
### What should happen after selection?
Sign a clear statement of work, establish decision ownership and data controls, then review against deliverables and stop conditions. Do not turn a one-off problem into an indefinite retainer by default.

## Sources
- [ICF Code of Ethics, effective 1 April 2025](https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/)
- [Broker-Dealers — US SEC](https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/capital-raising-building-blocks/broker-dealers)
- [Burkland: Strategic Finance for Startups](https://burklandassociates.com/services/strategic-finance/)
- [Reboot Portfolio Circles](https://www.reboot.io/service/portfolio-circles/)
- [The SAFE — Y Combinator](https://www.ycombinator.com/safe)